Follow Us

San Jose mayor eyes second chance for affordable housing measure

Less than four months after a $450 million affordable housing bond measure failed at the hands of San Jose voters, Mayor Sam Liccardo is exploring his options for 2020.

At the Silicon Valley Leadership Group’s Regional Economic Forum on Friday, Liccardo alluded that he’s in the process of building a coalition to go back to the ballot for another affordable housing bond measure.

In November, about 64 percent voted yes on the $450 million bond dubbed Measure V – the initiative needed about 67 percent of the vote to pass.

Garrick Percival, a political science professor at San Jose State University, said it isn’t unusual to see a measure revived, especially when it lost by a small margin. He added that the measure may also have a better chance to pass in a presidential election year.

“You could probably expect a 30 percent increase turnout overall in the city so that’s going to bring in a more diverse set of voters,” he said.

“It wouldn’t be the first time elected officials put something similar up again,” added San Jose State University colleague and political science professor Larry Gerston. “With different or added voter demographics, the same bond — or a similar one — could pass. Voters might go for it.”

The measure, endorsed by housing advocates, was the only bond that didn’t pass in last year’s election. Supporters argued that affordable units built with the bond would provide housing for seniors, veterans and middle class workers such as teachers and nurses — all vulnerable groups that are being pushed out of the South Bay.

“We know that affordable housing in our community is still a great need,” said Ky Le, director at the Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing. “The economy that we have is not working for everyone and it still continues to negatively affect working families, especially individuals who are unable to work, and the poorest people in our community.”

A public opinion survey was emailed to some San Jose residents Friday morning, testing the waters on $450 million in “general obligation bonds” with an average levy of 8 cents per $1,000 of assessed value, averaging $26.2 million annually until repaid. The money would provide affordable housing for “working families, veterans, teachers, nurses, paramedics and homeless residents,” the survey said. It’s unclear who sent it.

Not everyone is in favor of the measure’s resurrection.

Housing costs are only one factor driving inequality in the Bay Area. Some worry that the needs of current homeowners aren’t being acknowledged in the throes of the housing crisis.

Councilmember Johnny Khamis told San José Spotlight on Friday that he doesn’t support raising property taxes that could make it harder for residents to live here. Last fall Khamis was the only dissenting vote among his fellow councilors when deciding to put Measure V on the ballot.

“At this point, I think we have money, and we just need to find places to build,” he said. “We just decided to spend $111 million last week (on affordable housing). If the department was running out of money, I could understand there being a desire to do so, but the department has money.”

Khamis added that there were two other affordable housing measures that increased property taxes on the 2018 ballot and that in 2016, Santa Clara County voters passed a nearly $1 billion affordable housing bond.

But Le said Silicon Valley and the state needs to continue efforts to expand housing opportunities.

“What I recall from the 2018 bond measure — Measure V — was for affordable housing, and that some significant portion of it was for people on fixed and low incomes,” Le. said. “More housing that’s affordable to a range of people is needed and I think the answer to supporting this is ‘absolutely.’ If it’s something like (Measure V), then it will help address this problem.”

Reporter Grace Hase contributed to this report.

Contact Nadia Lopez at nadiia_77@yahoo.com or follow @n_llopez on Twitter.

We can’t do this without your help.

San José Spotlight is a 501(c)3 nonprofit news organization that’s 100% funded by your support. Please help us continue bringing high-quality, independent political and business news coverage to San Jose by joining our membership program with a tax-deductible donation today.

Comments (4)

ReacherMar 06, 2019 at 4:54PM

Considering the systematic failure of city and county policy to provide new building permits over the 3 year 2017-2020 HUD forecast, and that being policy which failed to produce nearly 6,000 new units using normal development means, how is this anything but corruption? Are citizens of San Jose aware of how the zoning commission policy artificially restricts supply of new units which is driving up our housing prices, and the complicity of city hall because increased home prices drive city and county tax revenues?

The result is the public funding shouldering the burden of risk for developers who are building units, using tax payers money, that should have been built by private capital during the forecast period with typical risk exposure for those units. With air cover from City Hall by emotionally appealing to our need for housing vulnerable demographics. HUD called for ~16,000 combined single/multifamily units and we’re on track to approve ~10k or fewer units. So we soak the tax payers $450m to give to private developers? WUT?! If we would have built capacity based on the market needs for parity we wouldn’t have nearly the at risk population in San Jose due to insane housing prices.

I think voters should demand an audit of how Measure A funds are being spent prior to approving hundreds of millions more to the affordable housing effort. It is clear that the issue of homelessness has gotten worse and worse under the leadership of Ky Le, Jennifer Loving, Jacky Ferrand, Ray Bramson, etc., — so 1) how much of the Measure A funds are being spent already in San Jose? 2) how many of the construction projects, related to affordable/supportive housing are on track/on-time to be completed? 3) how much of the Measure A/County funds are already being dispersed for subsidy programs like Rapid Rehousing/Permanent Supportive Housing, and what are the outcomes? 4) how well are the Ky Le’s and his programs monitoring existing contracts?

These simple and basic questions should be answered prior to anymore funds going into construction, or subsidized housing projects?

Measure A really missed the mark on the moderate income population — so if San Jose was smart, they would fill that gap in funding, and give the actual working families down payment and homebuyer assistance. Ky Le should’ve helped address the construction of new housing based on income levels with Measure A — but it all got funneled into one target population (chronically homeless), and now he wants San Jose to do what the County should’ve done.

I think the distinction between what Ky and the County are supposed to do, and what the City of San Jose (or other respective cities in the County) should do (yes, they are confusingly separate entities, but most of the work is done in the County’s largest City, San Jose) needs to be more clear to us tax-payers, and they should be one agency focused on this housing issue, not two separate and disjointed (Destination Home simply adds more confusion to this puzzle) efforts. They may cite the County Plan to End Homelessness — but just remember, that plan has been around for a long time, and the issue, again, with housing affordability and homelessness has just gotten worse. Lets’ start asking real questions here.

About Us

San José residents deserve a trusted source for unbiased, independent political news. And we’re here to provide it.

San José Spotlight is the city’s first nonprofit, community-supported digital news organization. We’re changing the face of journalism by providing an innovative model for delivering reliable, truthful news to the nation’s 10th largest city. We’re partnering with you – the readers – to make it happen. This is your newsroom.